Se­nior Jour­nal­ist Tavleen Singh has writ­ten ex­ten­sively for and against Naren­dra Modi. She has pre­sented ob­jec­tive read­ings about the Sikh strug­gle and cov­ered the Pun­jab in the 1980s and 1990s and she is en­ti­tled to her opin­ion. She is clearly in­sen­si­tive to the Sikh com­mu­ni­ty’s sen­ti­ments. This time, in her ar­ti­cle on In­di­a’s Cana­dian Prob­lem in The In­dian Ex­press, she has crossed the lim­its of re­li­gion and ci­vil­ity. The World Sikh News ed­i­tor Jag­mo­han Singh high­lights her mis­ad­ven­ture in call­ing Guru Gob­ind Singh a ‘Hin­du’, call­ing Sikhs as born to pro­tect Hin­dus and her ma­li­cious hint that In­dia should rake up trou­ble in Balochis­tan.

In the vast land­scape of jour­nal­ism, it is of­ten chal­leng­ing to dis­cern truth from opin­ion. How­ever, even in opin­ion pieces, there re­mains a re­spon­si­bil­ity to be an­chored in fact. Tavleen Singh’s re­cent Sun­day Col­umn -“In­di­a’s Cana­dian Prob­lem” is a glar­ing ex­am­ple of how unchecked as­sump­tions and dis­tor­tions can be mis­lead­ing, bor­der­ing on out­right dam­ag­ing.

A se­nior colum­nist, al­ways abra­sive and off-tan­gent with re­spect to Sikhs, their re­li­gion, and pol­i­tics, while talk­ing about the charge of the Cana­dian Prime Min­is­ter about cred­i­ble ev­i­dence in the killing of Hard­eep Singh Ni­j­jar, has sin­is­ter Idi-Amin-like wicked­ness to write, “It is a very se­ri­ous charge and when viewed from an In­dian point of van­tage, there is al­most a sense of pride that our usu­ally flat-footed in­tel­li­gence agen­cies have de­vel­oped as­sets that can pull off a Mossad type killing.”

“What is worth re­mem­ber­ing is that the army he built was an army of Hin­dus and that he was a Hindu him­self.”

Tavleen Singh in The In­dian Ex­press, while writ­ing about the Tenth Mas­ter, Guru Gob­ind Singh

Toe­ing the RSS line, she re­peats their lan­guage, say­ing, “What is worth re­mem­ber­ing, time and time again, is that the Khalsa was cre­ated by Guru Govind Singh with the spe­cific pur­pose of fight­ing the re­pres­sion of the Moghul Em­peror.”

Apart from all other mis­read­ings of the Sikh faith, Tavleen Singh has the au­dac­ity to say, “What is worth re­mem­ber­ing is that the army he built was an army of Hin­dus and that he was a Hindu him­self.”

“What is worth re­mem­ber­ing, time and time again, is that the Khalsa was cre­ated by Guru Govind Singh with the spe­cific pur­pose of fight­ing the re­pres­sion of the Moghul Em­peror.” 

Tavleen Singh, The In­dian Ex­press

Tavleen Singh’s as­ser­tion that Guru Gob­ind Singh, the revered tenth Sikh Guru, was a Hindu is not just a gross in­ac­cu­racy but an af­front to the Sikh com­mu­nity. Guru Gob­ind Singh Ji founded the Khalsa Panth and in­stilled within it the core prin­ci­ples of Sikhism. To la­bel him a Hindu shows a pro­found mis­un­der­stand­ing of Sikh his­tory and re­li­gious tra­di­tion.

While Hin­duism and Sikhism share his­tor­i­cal roots and ge­o­graph­i­cal ori­gins, they are dis­tinct in their spir­i­tual teach­ings, prac­tices, and iden­ti­ties.

Such mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tions are not only prob­lem­atic but serve to per­pet­u­ate the stereo­type of Sikhs as an off­shoot of Hin­duism. The Sikh com­mu­nity has long fought for its dis­tinct iden­tity, and Singh’s mis­char­ac­ter­i­za­tion un­der­mines this strug­gle. In fact, by do­ing so, she lends cre­dence to the RSS cho­rus which re­peats ad nau­seam, “Sikhs to be Hin­dus.”

The ar­ti­cle’s tone, more­over, is con­cern­ing. It as­sumes an anti-Sikh bias on the part of Tavleen Singh. While writ­ers, like all in­di­vid­u­als, are en­ti­tled to their view­points, when such bi­ases lead to bla­tant his­tor­i­cal in­ac­cu­ra­cies, it does a dis­ser­vice to read­ers and to the larger dis­course on Sikh af­fairs.

Singh’s treat­ment of the Khal­is­tan move­ment also war­rants scrutiny. While she may be right to ar­gue that not all Sikhs sup­port the idea of Khal­is­tan, she mis­rep­re­sents the un­der­ly­ing rea­sons  Sikhs feel alien­ated, the unique char­ac­ter of the Khalsa Panth, and the legacy of Sikh rule in the eigh­teenth cen­tury which is em­bed­ded in the hearts of the Sikhs.

Singh’s treat­ment of the Khal­is­tan move­ment also war­rants scrutiny. While she may be right to ar­gue that not all Sikhs sup­port the idea of Khal­is­tan, she mis­rep­re­sents the un­der­ly­ing rea­sons some Sikhs might feel alien­ated and the legacy of Sikh rule in the eigh­teenth cen­tury.

“The point I am mak­ing is that if we want to use our in­tel­li­gence agen­cies to make trou­ble on for­eign soil, it should be next door, not in far­away Canada. Or in the Ba­hamas. Re­mem­ber that goofy at­tempt to kid­nap Mehul Choksi? If Pak­istan is be­hind Cana­dian Khal­is­ta­nis, then it is time to sup­port the se­ces­sion­ist move­ment in Baluchis­tan openly.”

Paint­ing the en­tirety of a com­mu­ni­ty’s griev­ances as rooted in mere po­lit­i­cal ma­nip­u­la­tion or for­eign in­flu­ences is not only re­duc­tive but of­fen­sive.

To in­sin­u­ate that Sikhs’ feel­ings of alien­ation stem solely from the Prime Min­is­ter’s si­lence af­ter in­ci­dents of lynch­ing, with­out con­sid­er­ing a longer his­tory of sys­temic dis­crim­i­na­tion and sig­nif­i­cant events like the at­tack on Dar­bar Sahib, shows a deep bias if not a lack of depth in her ap­proach.

It is es­sen­tial to treat the topic of Khal­is­tan with nu­ance. The Sikh di­as­po­ra’s sen­ti­ments, es­pe­cially in coun­tries like Canada, are var­ied and rooted in com­plex so­cio-po­lit­i­cal his­to­ries. Sim­pli­fy­ing this to a mere ‘re­vival’ of a myth is dis­mis­sive.

Clap clap clap if you like this. In an ut­terly shame­ful man­ner she says, “The point I am mak­ing is that if we want to use our in­tel­li­gence agen­cies to make trou­ble on for­eign soil, it should be next door, not in far­away Canada. Or in the Ba­hamas. Re­mem­ber that goofy at­tempt to kid­nap Mehul Choksi? If Pak­istan is be­hind Cana­dian Khal­is­ta­nis, then it is time to sup­port the se­ces­sion­ist move­ment in Baluchis­tan openly.”

How­ever, the most dis­ap­point­ing as­pect of Singh’s piece is her sug­ges­tion that the In­dian gov­ern­ment should in­ter­fere in re­gions like Baluchis­tan as re­tal­i­a­tion for per­ceived Sikh dis­sent, she not only en­dorses a dan­ger­ous for­eign pol­icy but de­fames Sikhs.

The most dis­ap­point­ing as­pect of Singh’s piece is her sug­ges­tion that the In­dian gov­ern­ment should in­ter­fere in re­gions like Baluchis­tan as re­tal­i­a­tion for per­ceived Sikh dis­sent, she not only en­dorses a dan­ger­ous for­eign pol­icy but de­fames Sikhs.

In an era where mis­in­for­ma­tion spreads like wild­fire, it is cru­cial for writ­ers to en­sure that their as­ser­tions are grounded in truth and un­der­stand­ing. Dis­sem­i­nat­ing in­ac­cu­rate rep­re­sen­ta­tions of a com­mu­ni­ty’s his­tory and be­liefs is ir­re­spon­si­ble.

In­dian Ex­press will do well to have Tavleen Singh’s columns scru­ti­nized be­fore the Sikhs start knock­ing on the doors of courts for defama­tion and blas­phemy. The In­dian Ex­press needs to en­gage in rig­or­ous fact-check­ing and open di­a­logue with the com­mu­ni­ties they write about. This is not just the eth­i­cal thing to do; it is es­sen­tial for the in­tegrity of jour­nal­ism.